be able to have opportunities for college and higher education. african-american, latino and english-languageojsqy lerner advocates in pushing for this as an equitable and just measure. everyone else that has worked on this. >> president chiu: supervisor chu. supplemental value i wanted was correct. you're looking at 2.7 supplemental reducing it to 2 2.205. it looks like the source of funding you're suggesting is 4.412 from the schoolw5hhheñ dit set aside funds and the balance from the state reserves? >> supervisor kim: that is correct. >> supervisor chu: the balance was more like -- >> supervisor kim: i thought it was 843,000.

>> it probably should be 793,000? in front of us. have the balance come from the state reserve, correct? okay. so i wanted to clarify that, and glad that that was amended and changed. i know that young and other folks at the school district have been working hard with the mayor's office to work on that number and really trying to work that number down in a way that didn't jeopardize the credentialing program so i want to thank the school district for making the effort to do that. so i am very supportive of the reduction to that level. i think that's a good sign. the area where i still continue to have problems with the supplemental has to do with the source of fundings and i think expressed before. i think that itwx::t+z is -- ifs the school district who is indicating to us that this is a top priority of the school district i do think that it is incumbent on the school district to also put some funding into the supplemental, even if weij@ are -- i know there's a lot of controversy around using the

rainy day funds. but even if it wasn't the rainy day fund that was available the school district has, at the end of the year, the 26 million in fund balance. and it is true that the school district does project that they have future year deficits, but many things can change. as we all know with a budget, as the economy changes, as we get better revenue forecasts we have a different understanding of the budget and can adapt to it and balance to that level later on. so i really do think that taking a look at some of the funding sources here, it really ought to come i think from a place where the school district says it is their priority and that they're willing and able to use rainy day funds and even not that the reserves that they expect to have towards the end of the year. again they ended last year's school year with a fund balance of -- this year of 26 million. fundamentally i don't disagree with the usage but i think the source of funding is important for the city to consider especially knowing that we have other impacts that may flow down

for us. so i will be -- if i could take the amendment in two parts, one to reduce the level of funding from the 2.upon million to the 2.205 and separate out the funding source instead of it coming from the state revenue loss, coming from the rainy day. >> supervisor chu asked to divide the question on the amendment. we will take those two at the appropriate time. further discussion on the amendments. supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much, mr. president. good afternoon, everyone. many of us have spent a significant amount of time speaking with the young people that have come to lobby with us, parents, and the school district about this particular issue. what's very clear to most of us, certainly to me, is that we have a significant and alarming issue

that we have to deal with. almost 200 students in our city are not on track to graduate from high school -- excuse me, 2,000. 2,000 students, a large number of them, largely coming from district 10, the bayview, visit visitacion valley. we know one of the greatest economic barriers and disadvantages to our youth can -- disadvantages that our youth can have is not finishing high school. we see it every day. and in looking at the school district's data it's clear the vast majority of students that are not on track to graduate are students of color and those who speak english as a second language, or english as their second language. i believe that, as a city and as a member of the board of supervisors, we need to give this population of students additional courses, and an opportunity to invest in

enrichment programs that can help some of the students succeed in school, if not all of them. additionally in reviewing our end of the year budget, and revenue projections, it's clear that our city is in much better financial position than we were a few years ago. and i believe that with the reduction in the supplemental that it's reasonable and within our means to support this request. thank you, supervisor kim, for your leadership on this matter. i would also like to stress to the school district leadership that's here that while i know you have -- that while i know that you have had to... contend with significant budget cuts just want you to know that we are supportive of you and watching and paying attention how you will account for these needs and costs for the budget process in the upcoming year. i will be supporting this item but not the use of rainy day fund to support this program. thank you. >> president chiu: supervisor

farrell. >> supervisor farrell: thanks, president chiu. thanks supervisor kim for bringing this forward. i don't think anyone here in the chambers disputes the need for this and you spoke well about it. i've always sped if you're going to spend dollars spend it on your kids education and i agree with that. i do have a question as well about the source of funding. in terms of rainy day funds not knowing before the school has anticipated budget surplus going into this year, pulling it from state reserves right now with a $15 million state reserve, i guess i would like to ask ms. howard, pulling it from state reserves, we have 15 million from state reserves right now budgeted, and we're going to take some money from that according to this amendment. question is, from your point of view, from the mayor's staff and from budget office, what are we anticipating for, you know,

state cuts, that we haven't seen yet? if it's less than 15 million we should talk about it. if it's more than that then i don't understand why we're doing this. >> thanks, supervisor. kate howard, mayor's budget director. so you're correct, we have allocated $15 million this year for state budget impacts. we expect to go forward, and i think i've talked to many of you previously about a state supplemental in the early part of the next year, covering childcare cuts, healthcare cuts, as well as other mostly in human services agency. that's in the neighborhood of $8 million. i think the bigger question for us, in terms of what are the draws on that, what other draws might be on that, are what's the impact of the federal sequester and the fiscal cliff. so we're certainly hopeful that the federal government will get its act together. but right now, what we're

projecting, if the fiscal cliff and the federal sequester were enacted as it is in law, it would be about $26 million, in additional impacts to the city, and that's everything from hiv and aids services, homeless, cdbg funds for our community development block grants, it's a wide range of programs affecting kind of all -- sort of the whole range of social and public safety services that the federao government invests in through this city. so those are the kinds of concerns. it's a significant risk, i think. and that is why we looked so hard at other sources of funds for this supplemental. >> so the total on that would be 30, 32, and we have 15 reserve against it. so it's a question back to my colleagues, why are we doing this right now with this pocket of money? again fully support this money

that. but why are we pulling from state reserves bh when we know we're getting a cut in a month and upwards of 30 million that we don't have allocated right now. that would be my question to my colleagues. >> president chiu: supervisor campos. >> supervisor campos: thank you very much, mr. president. i do want to thank supervisor kim and her staff, who have been working on this for quite some time. i also want to thank the members of the community who have also been advocating for the city, providing additional funding to the school district. you know, i've said this many times before, you know, that i do believe that we, as city government, have an obligation to support our public schools because we do have a situation where our federal government and our state government are failing our kids. they are not providing the level of funding that is needed for us to have the kind of world-class

public school system that our children deserve. and in san francisco, a city of great affluence to the extent that the federal and state governments are not stepping up to the plate, we have historically, as city government, done that, and that's why we have created things like the rainy day fund and prop h. this has been very clear from the beginning. but one thing that i did raise last time, and i want to make sure that on the record i get some assurances on, is the issue of the rainy day fund. the rainy day fund has -- was created for a reason, and has its own mechanism of how it works, and it's something that should stand on its own two feet, irrespective of what we choose to do or not do for the school district by way of a/%( supplemental. so through the chair, i just wanted to ask a question of the budget director, or the controller, whoever it might be the appropriate person. i just want to make sure that on

the record we get assurances that if this is voted on, and this passes, that it will not touch the rainy day fund. >> president chiu: mr. controller. >> supervisors, the amendment that's before you would not use the rainy day reserve as a source. so it would not draw upon it. >> supervisor campos: thank you. and i appreciate that. and i -- again, i want to thank supervisor kim for the fact that her office, and everyone who's worked on this, have been very responsive to the concerns raised around that. again, we believe that the supplemental is appropriate, but that in doing the supplemental that we need to protect the funding that was -- that is there through the rainy day fund. so in light of that, i will be supporting this measure as amended. and, you know, as to the general

question of why now, and why this source of funding, i think that there probably different arguments as to why one source of funding is better than another, and as to why, maybe it's appropriate to wait or not wait. my own personal view is, you know -- and i understand people may have a different perspective -- is i do think that we have a crisis in san francisco. happening in our public you know, we have one of the highest performing urban school districts in the country. we probably have the highest we probably have the highest performing urban schoolt and, yet, in such a high performing district, we still have a number of young people who are not doing well for whom the system is really failing. and i think that it's unacceptable to have the level of achievement gap that we have in san francisco. and even though money and

resources is not the be-all, end-all it is part of the equation, it is part of the answer. it reality is -- and i say this as someone who worked at the school district for many years -- that there is only so much that the administration, that our teachers can do, that our parents can do, without those resources. and so that's why i think this is important, and this is important now. because i do think that we have a crisis. and the thing about the achievement gap and the low performance of some of these kids is that we also know that the™jpkñ gap becomes. and that, you know, to the extent that you wait six months, you wait a year, however the wait might be, that to have the impact then that you can have today, you probably will end up having to spend more money. and so that's why i believe that the sooner that we can act,ropíq

better. so thank you again to everyone who's worked on this. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. i just want to clarify the numbers again. in speaking to the controller, so the appropriation again, and i'm sorry if i misspoke earlier, it's $2,255 million so that does leave the sources at the same amount which is 1,412,000 from our school district set aside funds. this is money that we owe the school district. this is their money. so we are giving them the money that is allocated to them. we're just appropriating it and we're asking now for only 843,000 from the state revenue loss reserve fund. i want to respond to a couple of questions brought up about why now. first our semester is beginning in january. so it was important to get this money to the school district so they could begin the programming the first week of school. our juniors are currently entering their spring semester and next year they lo will be

seniors inspect we felt it was important to get these programs started the first week the first semester for the juniors. i know we're looking at potentially 30 million in cuts of federal request ration but since june 30th we've put money into our fund that means we have 74 million in our budget stabilization fund on top of the 15 million dollar state reserve loss fund. this was in the memo rereceived this morning from the controller's office. i'm not saying that money should come out of here or there, but@9 i'm saying there's more than the 15 million state reserve fund that we're talking about here. so 15 million state reserve fund, we have 74 million in our budget stabilization fund. it's hard to imagine why an 800,000 ask is that much from the city, to go towards the program that's really going to help our juniors and sophomores graduate on time. of course the budget is always a choice. we're always making choices. and when we choose to fund this, we may not be able to fund another thing.

i get that. and we're making a decision now when there might be other asks in the future. for me the answer is simple. i will always choose schools. they are one of my top priorities. even when you look at our prison system for example, just in san francisco county jail alone 75% of inmates didn't graduate from high school. like what can we do to prevent that number from increasing. it's to graduate our kids from high school. this 800,000 is not a lot. it's modest for what we're trying to do. it will help enrichment programs to keep our kids in school. and the other thing i'll say is in regards to our school district, over the last few years, for the first time in over a decade, the school district has actually been reversing the widening achievement gap. and i forget what year it started but since roughly about five years ago the school district has narrowed the the

achievement gap every year. and previous to that it had only widened every year meaning the gap between african-american, pacific islander and latino students versus white and asian-american students. now we are finally narrowing that gap so district is on trap, we're doing the work we need to do. this small amount of money will help the school district do the work that it's doing to get our kids to graduate. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. i have almpúu question to the s budget office. we have not received a deficit forecast for the next fiscal year. i think that's probably coming soon. can you just give an update on that because there was a reference before to having a better budget picture. so i'd like to get some specifics on that. >> through the chair, supervisor wiener, kate howard, mayor's budget director. you're right, we haven't issued

budget directions or -- we haven't projected a deficit. that will be coming next week. i can say that the outlook has improved since last year, but we still will be projecting significant deficits in the first year and in the second year. for a variety of reasons, including things like, you know, the new san francisco general hospital, changes with federal healthcare reform, funding our capital plan, all those sorts of choices. but it will be -- i will be going out with budget going out with budget instructions with significant departments to make reductions. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. i ask that question because even though this is a -- in terms of appropriation, even though this is just for this year, i do have a question for whether this will turn into an annual request.

and that's not a criticism. one could take the view that we should be supporting this on an annual basis but making clear that it's not like we're going into surplus next year. so, you know, i supported prop h. i supported the rainy day fund. i'm sure i will be supporting the reauthorization of prop h. and i think we all support the city supporting our schools. i do have concerns about the use of the state reserve, and very supportive of using the children's funds -- the set pretty easy one. i have concerns about the reserve particularly for the reasons that supervisor farrell expressed doing this now, when we still have uncertainties on the state and particularly the federal level. and i understand the debate about the rainy day fund. but from my perspective, you know, the voters have passed

these various funds, prop h, rainy day fumgd, to provide funding to the school district. some of that money is supposed to be restricted particularly around prop h, but for the rainy day fund the whole point is for problem budget years for the school district to be able to make its choices about how it spends that money. so, you know, i guess if there were no rainy day money, and it was just depleted and there was no way that money was not going to the school district, that would be a conversation to have. but since we quo that there -- know there's more rainy day funding going to the school district than this allocation that we been talking about in terms of the rainy day fund then this requested supplemental, i don't see why we would do a supplemental from the state federal reserve, given the uncertainties around the state and federal government budgets, and the whole point of the rainy day funds being to allow the

school district to make choices with that money. i've heard a lot of talk about what different people think the rainy day fund should go for. that's a decision for the school district. it's not restricted. so i do have concerns about the being used. i'm very supportive of the -- money. chu. >> supervisor chu: i wanted to address two points. i think there was a question supervisor campos raised about why now, that it's important, and it's important now. i think we don't disagree on that level. i think that it's important for the school district to have this funding in place so they can implement these programs in the second part of the year. so i don't think that that's really a big debate in my mind. i do think the school district needs this funding now if they're going to implement the credit program so i don't disagree with you there. i think supervisor kim

mentioned, and was really advocating that this is a good use of money. i don't think many of us disagree with that either. i think it's important for us to be able to support our youth being able to graduate and allow them to catch up, if they have a desire to catch up and they can catch up and that will help them graduate i think that's a very good thing to do and we should do that. where we fundamentally disagree is the funding and the alternative to what is being proposed. what is being proposed right now is the usage of the p dollars but also the state reserve in order to get to the 2.255 million. what i'm suggesting and what i think many other folks are suggesting is there's actually another way to fund this and can be funded right now, immediately, to help the school district, and that is with the use of p money, with the use of rainy day funds in a way to allow this city to be more flexible with deal with challenges that we will face from the state or federal government. so that's really the breaking point that we have and the disagreement we have. i don't disagree with the importance of now. importance of now. i don't disagree with thelá

the objective. i disagree with how we plan to fund it. i think that we should be able to preserve the city's flexibility to deal with some of these big challenges we have coming, and we can still do it with the p money and rainy day that's not something folks may be interested in today but i fundmentally think that is the way to go with this one so that is why i don't support the use knowledge of those funds. >> president chiu: supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos: i want to sprnk supervisor kim for bringing this forward and i appreciate all the work that you've done in front of the scenes and behind the scenes to try and cobble together a package that can be supported at the board of supervisors. we have choices that come up all the time about how we use our revenue and how we find revenue. this is one of those difficult choices that many of us have. but last year, i lookújúwu at he made a choice about how we were going to support business development in the mid-market

use general fund support for businesses, in giving a tax exemption for businesses. i didn't support that but i understand it's a choice that we had before us. i feel the choice we make in doing that has actually -- it paved the way for the most highly skilled people to get jobs in our new economy, and the people in san francisco who are long-term residents, are not getting their access to these jobs that are created. we're also seeing an impact on the housing cost, and gentrification, we're seeing businesses in the area that are affected by that. that's a choice that are made, that's implications to that those choice and we are seeing many students are falling behind. i think we have a choice today about how we use our general fund dollars, our state reserve dollars to look at how we can keep a certain part of our scriblth, black and brown kids, from falling behind. and if we're able to make this kind of allocation with our general fund dollars, with our state fund reserve dollars we

can help close the achievement gap, we can make sure young people can graduate, can get on to higher education, can get on the way to find a pathway into our growing economy, that right now is falling -- is causing them to fall behind. because we're not providing the kind of safety net or education program and our job placement programs that can really help bring them up. this is a choice we have today. i totally support it and i hope we can actually find the votes to have a veto proof majority in making this go forward. >> president chiu: supervisor >> supervisor olague: -- kim and her staff for all the work on this and i wanted to refer to an article that was in yesterday's paper, and it's kind of an odd title but it was black boy see bleak future at school. it stated one out of four african-american boys in california is convinced he will

fail in school, driven in part by poverty and trauma according to results of a legislative inquiry. then they go on to say, the report's findings included broad summaries of how men and boys of color especially african-american and latino males fair in california. race matter. where you live to a large extent determines whether you're exposed to polluteants, good schools, whether you get a good job with livable wage and whether you're likely to go to jail or die relatively young according to the report. i'll close it with -- don't worry i won't read the entire thing but one of the recommendations they mention that currently about 70% of california males under age 25 or -- ethnicity other than white, yet too many of those boys of color are failing in schools and are off track to succeed in the workforce. so it's not just something that is specific to san francisco.

it's obviously all of california. finally, for example by fourth grade about 60% of black and latino children score below proefficient on reading tests and by eighth grade about one in four are chronically absent. so one of the findings was that we need to change our value system and recognize that investing in the most marginalized youth will yield the greatest economic returns for california. so i think that that's the spirit of what is being proposed today by supervisor kim. so just wanted to mention that i do support it. >> president chiu: colleagues, any additional discussion? okay. to be clear, because i know a lot of numbers have been thrown around, supervisor kim has proposed and it's been seconded by supervisor mar that there are two numbers in her ordinance that change. one is the total sources and uses appropriation number, to change that from 2.705 million

down to 2.255 million. the second change would be on the state revenue loss reserve number, changing that from 1.293 million down to 843,000. supervisor chu has asked that we divide that amendment. so what i'd like to do is take the first piece of that, the 2.705 number which is being amended down to 2.55 number to take that amendment first. colleagues i'm wondering if we could take that amendment without objection. without objection, that shall be the case. and then on the second half of supervisor kim's amendment, which is to change the state revenue loss reserve number, and reduce it but not eliminate it, if we could take a roll call vote on that amendment. >> point of information. so supervisor kim -- a motion to reduce the state federal reserve amount -- >> president chiu: the state revenue loss reserve number.

>> supervisor wiener: right. then supervisor chu has made i thought a motion to amend that. i'm just -- >> president chiu: she hasn't made a motion to amend. she'd like to vote on whether that is the appropriate change. i think the implication from supervisor chu would be the preference would be to change that in a different way. would you like to respond. >> supervisor chu: i'm going to withdraw that. we can take the vote as for the whole amendment reducing the state reserve number because technically the dollar amount was -- so we're reducing it that is better than what it was before. so we'll take a vote on the whole item. >> supervisor wiener: point of order. it might make -- we might be able to do it without objection is all i'm saying. it's just a reduction. >> i wanted to be clear. taking again the second half of that amendment, reducing, and this would be on page 3, line 6, the 1.293 millionll